Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Suffers Setback

  1. #1
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,537
    Amen (Given)
    8381
    Amen (Received)
    5364

    National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Suffers Setback

    Source: Fox News



    In a major blow to state-by-state progressive efforts to effectively replace the Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that presidential electors in the Electoral College have the absolute right to vote for presidential candidates of their choice.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Translation: states cannot tell electors how to vote. With no legal binding, electors can vote for their party's candidate instead of the candidate specified by the state.

    And yeah, it affects winner take all states (48) - or would if it were the Supreme Court instead of a District Court. As it stands, it affects the Southwest.

    Not likely to go to the Court this year - but it mucks up efforts to award all votes to the nationally popular candidate.

  2. Amen Raphael amen'd this post.
  3. #2
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Triangle
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,398
    Amen (Given)
    1705
    Amen (Received)
    4561
    I don't like the result of the ruling; not because of anything to with the compact, but because it stops states from doing anything about faithless electors (which I don't think are good for the process).
    "Technology has, in an enhanced way, given mockers a platform to set society on fire with polarizing speech. Internet culture privileges those whose insults are click bait." - Timothy Keller

  4. Amen DesertBerean amen'd this post.
  5. #3
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,537
    Amen (Given)
    8381
    Amen (Received)
    5364
    Quote Originally Posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I don't like the result of the ruling; not because of anything to with the compact, but because it stops states from doing anything about faithless electors (which I don't think are good for the process).
    I'm more wondering if, under this ruling's logic, states even have the right to be 'winner take all'.

    Faithless electors have not yet been a factor in any outcome - granted, it could happen but it's so unlikely that I'm not sure it matters.

  6. #4
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,880
    Amen (Given)
    118
    Amen (Received)
    414
    'we are not democracy, but democratic republic!!!! we have representatives!!!, cos rule of mob bad!'. Then 'why is there 'faithless electors???'

    Either representatives just puppets of 'rule of mob', or no 'rule of mob' and they can vote how they want.
    Trump is basically "Bruce Wayne pretending to be a foppish retarded billionaire" tier genius, in case nerds need a simpler metaphor.

  7. #5
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,824
    Amen (Given)
    2364
    Amen (Received)
    692
    The ruling seems to be in keeping with the original intent of the Constitution. In that case, there is no such thing as "faithless" in the commonly understood sense. The Electors were not intended to be mindless avatars helplessly carrying out the *will* of the people, they were supposed to be Better and Smarter than the Great Unwashed, and would act according to their own view of the *best interests* of the people.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  8. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.
  9. #6
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,743
    Amen (Given)
    4973
    Amen (Received)
    22058
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Source: Fox News



    In a major blow to state-by-state progressive efforts to effectively replace the Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that presidential electors in the Electoral College have the absolute right to vote for presidential candidates of their choice.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Translation: states cannot tell electors how to vote. With no legal binding, electors can vote for their party's candidate instead of the candidate specified by the state.

    And yeah, it affects winner take all states (48) - or would if it were the Supreme Court instead of a District Court. As it stands, it affects the Southwest.

    Not likely to go to the Court this year - but it mucks up efforts to award all votes to the nationally popular candidate.
    Well then states can't make their electors follow their state popular vote either.

    Or to put it another way, they can use the same system to get their electors to follow the country's popular vote as they now do to get them to follow their state's popular vote. Get them to swear to doing so under oath. It's not a 100% guarantee but that is the way it works now.

  10. #7
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,833
    Amen (Given)
    5641
    Amen (Received)
    5896
    It was always a scheme to ignore the will of voters in an individual state if they happened to vote contrary to the rest of the country.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  11. #8
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,743
    Amen (Given)
    4973
    Amen (Received)
    22058
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    It was always a scheme to ignore the will of voters in an individual state if they happened to vote contrary to the rest of the country.
    Yup. And if my state did that, I think the voters would be in an uproar and the idjuts who legislated such a thing would be out on their ears come next election, or there might even be some lynchings.

    I think they actually should change the law to say that the electors have to vote the popular vote in their state. Otherwise you have idiotic schemes like this coming up, or you could end up with electors conspiring to go against the popular vote of the state and the country. They could have conceivably all voted for Jill Stein and it would have been legal.

  12. #9
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,833
    Amen (Given)
    5641
    Amen (Received)
    5896
    Or go back to the way it used to be where electors were selected by the state governments. At least then we might get away from idiots voting for the guy who promises the most free stuff.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  13. #10
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,880
    Amen (Given)
    118
    Amen (Received)
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    The ruling seems to be in keeping with the original intent of the Constitution. In that case, there is no such thing as "faithless" in the commonly understood sense. The Electors were not intended to be mindless avatars helplessly carrying out the *will* of the people, they were supposed to be Better and Smarter than the Great Unwashed, and would act according to their own view of the *best interests* of the people.
    Exactly point of demi's.

    People want democracy when suits them, but democratic republic when not suiting them. Want to have cake and eat it.
    Trump is basically "Bruce Wayne pretending to be a foppish retarded billionaire" tier genius, in case nerds need a simpler metaphor.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •